Bombay HC's BIG verdict: Aadhaar, PAN or Voter ID alone do not make an Indian citizen
The verdict came while refusing bail to Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, who the prosecution claims is a Bangladeshi national who entered India illegally more than a decade ago.
Authorities allege he crossed the border without valid travel papers, obtained fraudulent Indian documents, and used them to pose as a citizen.
Justice Amit Borkar noted that the Citizenship Act of 1955 is the 'main and controlling law' for deciding nationality in India. The Act lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired, and under what circumstances it can be lost.
'Merely having documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India,' the court ruled. 'These documents are for identification or availing services, but they do not override the legal requirements of citizenship.'
The bench underlined the importance of distinguishing lawful citizens from illegal migrants, warning that allowing forged identities undermines national sovereignty and enables individuals with no legal status to wrongfully access benefits meant for citizens.
The Bombay High Court denied Sardar's bail request, citing ongoing verification of his Aadhaar by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and concerns that he may abscond. Justice Borkar pointed out that the charges went beyond overstaying — they involved deliberate concealment of identity and the creation of forged documents to claim citizenship benefits.
Police also indicated they are investigating whether Sardar's case is linked to a wider organised network involved in illegal immigration and identity fraud.
When India's Constitution was drafted, the country had just undergone Partition, triggering large-scale migration. The framers created constitutional provisions to clearly define who would be considered a citizen at the start of the Republic, and gave Parliament the authority to legislate on citizenship thereafter.
The Citizenship Act, passed in 1955, remains the definitive statute on the matter — and bars illegal migrants from obtaining citizenship through most legal routes.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the Election Commission of India's (ECI) view that Aadhaar should not be considered conclusive proof of citizenship, stating that it must be independently verified.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Bihar electoral roll.
'The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified," Justice Kant told advocate Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for the petitioners, as reported by LiveLaw.
The Bombay High Court's ruling serves as a clear reminder: identity documents are not proof of nationality. For citizenship claims, the law — not paperwork — is the final authority.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Court says Aadhaar not conclusive citizenship proof, flags ‘trust deficit'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said there appeared to be a 'trust deficiency' surrounding the Election Commission of India's (ECI) special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, even as it backed the poll body's stand that possession of an Aadhaar card cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship. The court was hearing multiple petitions challenging ECI's June 24 directive ordering an SIR ahead of the upcoming Bihar assembly polls (HT File) A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the first question to be settled was whether ECI had the legal authority to carry out the exercise. 'If they don't have the power, everything ends. But if they have the power, there cannot be a problem. You will have to then tell us about the process,' observed the bench, adding that the court would not hesitate to strike down the entire process if it found that ECI lacked such authority or if 'gross illegality' was detected even after the final rolls were published. The court was hearing multiple petitions challenging ECI's June 24 directive ordering an SIR ahead of the upcoming Bihar assembly polls. Petitioners , which include non-governmental organisations, political leaders and activists, have alleged that the process, if left unchecked, could disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters and undermine free and fair elections. During the hearing, the court remarked: 'This is largely a case of trust deficiency, nothing else.' The bench asked ECI to be prepared with detailed facts and figures, including the number of voters before SIR, the tally of voters declared dead earlier and now, and data on inclusions and exclusions. ECI defended its decision, citing demographic changes, urban migration, and the need to remove inaccuracies from rolls that have not undergone intensive revision for nearly two decades. It maintained that it has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to carry out SIR. In its latest affidavit filed on August 9, the Commission stressed that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 do not require it to prepare or publish a separate list of the nearly 6.5 million persons not included in the draft rolls, or to state the reasons for each non-inclusion. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal parliamentarian Manoj Jha, alleged that even voters who had participated in multiple past elections were missing from the draft rolls, with some alive voters recorded as dead. He argued that the requirement to re-submit forms, even for those in the 2003 rolls with no change in address, could lead to unjustified exclusions. Appearing for Trinamool Congress lawmaker Mahua Moitra and some others, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that there is a presumption of citizenship and highlighted the short time period within which the entire process is taking place just ahead of the elections. He further submitted that millions of people cannot be declared invalid on the basis of presumption. Activist and psephologist Yogendra Yadav called SIR 'the largest exercise of disenfranchisement in history,' claiming the exclusions could cross one crore and disproportionately affect women -- 3.1 million women versus 2.5 million men, according to his figures. He said the process had resulted in 'zero additions' to the rolls, turning it into 'an exercise in intensive deletion.' Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), questioned why the draft roll, searchable online until August 4, was later made non-searchable. He also alleged that Block Level Officers had rejected 10-12% of applications without recorded reasons. During the hearing, the bench did not agree with the assertion that most people in Bihar lacked the documents required for verification, pointing to the availability of family registers, pension cards and other papers. On Aadhaar, the court observed: 'ECI is correct in saying Aadhaar can't be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship; it has to be verified. See Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act.' This provision states that Aadhaar is only proof of identity, and not of citizenship. While acknowledging that errors were inevitable in such a large-scale exercise, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing ECI, said these could be corrected before the final roll is published on September 30. He noted that around 65 million people did not need to submit documents because they or their parents were in the 2003 rolls. The court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday. The petitions by ADR and others challenge ECI's June 24 notification initiating SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitioners argue that the ECI's demand for only 11 specified documents, such as birth or matriculation certificates, passport, domicile certificate, etc, as proof of citizenship lacks statutory basis. They further claim that this restrictive documentation requirement could disenfranchise a large number of legitimate voters, especially those from marginalised communities. SIR has become a major political flashpoint ahead of the Bihar assembly elections scheduled for later this year. Opposition parties in the INDIA bloc staged protests in Parliament and wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking a special discussion. The government has dismissed the protests and said that infiltrators cannot have the right to vote. On July 28, the top court had refused to stay the publication of the draft rolls but reminded ECI that the SIR must promote inclusion, not mass exclusion.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SEC says sought India law ministry's help on summons for Adani
Washington The Securities and Exchange Commission is in touch with India's law ministry to serve billionaire Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani with legal documents related to a civil suit alleging violations of American securities laws, the US regulator said in a letter filed in a New York City court. The Adani Group has denied the charges, terming them 'baseless' (Subhankar Chakraborty/HT PHOTO) In its status updated dated August 11 to Magistrate Judge James Cho of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the SEC said that Indian authorities have not yet served the Adanis, based in India, with the summons yet. The SEC filed charges in November 2024 against the two businessmen, claiming they had a role in alleged payments to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to Indian officials for securing renewable energy contracts. The US markets regulator said it filed the charges as a 2021 offering by one of the companies allegedly involved, Adani Green, raised funds from US investors and the shares of another company, Azure Power, was previously traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The Adani Group has denied the charges, terming them 'baseless'. The group did not respond to a request for comment on the SEC's latest filing. The SEC informed the New York Court that it intends to continue efforts to work with Indian authorities and serve the Adanis via the Hague Service Convention, pointing out it could not summon a foreign national directly. The convention, which entered into force in 1965, creates standardized procedures that allow judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served abroad. India's law ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Never thought we would see his face again': 19-year-old Bengal migrant returns weeks after sent to Bangladesh
A 19-year-old Bengali migrant who was detained by Rajasthan police on June 19 and later deported to Bangladesh has finally returned home, his family and local leaders said on Tuesday. The case came to light after a video of Amir Sheikh, filmed in Bangladesh, circulated on social media. Amir, a resident of Jalalpur village under Kaliachowk police station in Malda, had gone to Rajasthan to work as a construction labourer. However, his family lost contact with him after his detention. Amir lost his mother five years ago and his father works as a migrant labourer in Uttar Pradesh. Ajmal said the family first saw the video last month and learned that Amir had been pushed into Bangladesh. ' We got a call last evening from someone in Basirhat. I did not know who he was. We then spoke with Amir on video call. I identified him. He said he was in a Bangladesh jail. Then we were told that he would be brought back. This morning we received another call stating that he is with the BSF. We are waiting for further instructions,' Ajmal said. In a video message on social media, Isha Khan Choudhury, Congress MP from Malda Dakshin Lok Sabha constituency, said central agencies and the Border Security Forces (BSF) had traced Amir. 'We are happy to share with the people of the constituency and press colleagues that a wrongly expelled Indian citizen was traced in Bangladesh by the central government and BSF,' she said. After being detained in the labour camp in Rajasthan, Mr Amir Sheikh is being released today. BSF ADG of West Bengal told me that Amir Sheikh is now in BSF control. They will inform the family today about the development.' 'Earlier I had spoken to the home secretary and BSF DG over the issue. I hope such an incident never takes place in the country. Indian citizens and travel throughout the country. It is a fundamental right. It is sad that the person was arrested and deported. But today is a happy day that he has been brought back to India,' added Choudhury in his message. Samirul Islam, TMC Rajya Sabha MP and chairman of the West Bengal Migrant Labour Welfare Board, said the family had been supported from the start. 'Amir Sk, a migrant worker from Malda's Kaliachak, was deported to Bangladesh by the Rajasthan police. Since his deportation, we have been with the family from day one, extending all kinds of support to them. We also helped his father move the Calcutta High Court with a habeas corpus petition. Following the petition, top Rajasthan government officials and those from the Centre were summoned by the hon'ble court. The case was scheduled to be heard tomorrow,' he said. 'As interestingly there was no way to repatriate Amir except through legal intervention, as he had been tagged under a case involving illegal entry into Bangladesh. Amid such a situation, the central government is now trying to repatriate Amir Sheikh to his Malda home to save face and avoid the legal blow for the illegal pushback,' Islam added. ' One has to do something so that this trend of pushing out our Bengal residents to Bangladesh stops. There should be proper rehabilitation for such victims,' said Asif Faruk, state general secretary of the Parijayi Sramik Aikya Manch (Migrant Workers' Unity Forum). In the video last month, accessed by The Indian Express, Amir Sheikh is seen speaking to residents in Bangladesh. He identifies himself, shares his West Bengal address, and alleges that after being detained for two months, he was recently sent across the border into Bangladesh. The incident comes in the wake of similar cases across several states, including Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. On June 14, seven residents of West Bengal were detained in Mumbai and later pushed into Bangladesh by the BSF. After intervention by the West Bengal government, four youths from Murshidabad, one from Purba Bardhaman and a husband-wife duo from North 24 Parganas were brought back.
